Agreed. But I don't think COIN is war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
OK, but in War you assert your legitimacy by killing those who seek to dispute by force of arms. Once the bad guys are dead, you can have the political process decide the legitimacy.
In Irregular Warfare, you do not win by being the better government. You win by being the only government.
Violent, no doubt.
But given the inherent internal nature of insurgency and COIN, I am currently of the mind that calling it "war" is extremely counterproductive to effective COIN. Better to look at insurgency as a "Civil Emergency" and the military aspect of COIN through the doctrinal construct of "Military Support to Civil Authorities" (MSCA). I think this leads to healthier perspectives that are more likely to yield an enduring result.
To wage war on one's own populace is a slippery slope indeed.
As to sending one's military to conduct FID through that same MSCA construct in support on another nations COIN efforts; that is another thing as well.
I am drafting up a paper now that hits this in greater detail, tentatively titled "Changing the Lexicon - A Critical Step in Winning the Battle of the Narrative" that explore dropping the current lexicon rooted in war and COIN; and evoliving to lexicon rooted in MSCA and Criminal Law. Actions will certainly remain "war-like" for a while in Afghanistan, but with the idea that words proceed action, and that changing how we think as well as how we talk will pave the way more quickly to reducing military support and evolving from military prosecution to civilian prosecution of those who act out.
If you'd like, I'll push you a draft in a week or so.
Bob
Be sure to add the chapter about Protestantism
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tukhachevskii
I whole heartedly agree. On a number of threads I have attempted, usually dismally, to impress upon the members of the central role of Islam in Islam
ism/Islam
ist violence(political uncorrect notion of course). I decided that I would write a proper article for the Small Wars Journal outlining my conceptual and theortetical basis for such an assertion. However, I came up against two problems; 1) getting hold of the necessary material, either via the library or via my university alumni service, would immediately flag me up as one of them!; 2) most of the material avaliable is through websites whom I would rather NOT give my personal details to. However, while schlepping through the internet to find what research material I could I discovered that someone had beaten me to it and produced a work that I could only hope to ape rather than best. The work is a thesis written as part of the course requirements at the US National Defence Intelligence College in 2007 by a Major Stephen Collins Coughlin. I think it would be to
Our Great Detriment if it were more not more widely diseminated. I understand he is in political hot water for his work but from what I hear right thinking individuals in the Pentagon (shock horror, who would have thought it) are
rallying around him; finally, common sense prevails.
You wouldn't want to have us radical Christians feeling left out simply because our movement to throw off the poor governance of the Holy Roman Empire is already over.
But if you are looking for allies in making this all about villanizing a particular religion, google some of Ralph Peters recent stuff. He's pretty out there on that limb as well.
No doubt about it though, religious-based ideology works. That's why so many insurgent leaders use it. National leaders as well for the same reasons.
Don't worry, you are in good company
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tukhachevskii
Sir, if I am out to
villianise Islam does that mean that AQ, Hezbollah, JI, MB (et al) are
perverting it? Upon whom does the onus of responsibility lie for providing us with a proper strategic appreciation of our foes and their relationship to their "religion"? I seek merely to understand Jihad for
what it is not for
what we would like it to be. If we don't like the conclusions fine...and as for protestanism, the inquisition etc. I don't think I ever absolved them for their violence but I do find it hard to find scriptural evidence to support such actions unlike our Jihadi friends: yes, the Book of Joshua could be held up but then the Book of Joshua is meant as history- what Joshua
did- not what Christians should
do. Unlike the Shari'a and the Quran. However, I do not mean to dismiss your concerns/points, I would rather not get into a flame war, but I acknowledge your valid and pertinent concerns. And yes, I do like "most" of what Ralph Peters writes because invective, polemic and controversy are very often the foundations of proper debate and the beginnings of truth.
Not a company I will join, but that is both of our perogatives.
Most see ideology as a COG for insurgency; I, like Chairman Deng Xiaoping, see it much more as a Critical Requireiment. A good cat that catches mice. I think the history of insurgency backs this perspective. Often that good cat is steeped in the religion of the populace that a leader is seeking to motivate. That is a smart insurgent leader. But it is not the religion that is likely to be at fault so much as it is the governance over that same populace.
I was debated vigorously on this topic by a religious scholar who had read my paper published here on SWJ regarding the role of ideology in insurgency. He was determined to prove to me that religion was at the core of the problems and touted his "several PhDs" on the topic. Then, in a moment of high irony, accused me of have secular biases due to my background. He was not amused when I suggested that perhaps he may have a religious bias or two based upon his.
Mike (JMM) has made the point on this forum about the difference between information that are "facts", those facts that are "relevant" and those facts that are "material." I believe you are good all the way up through relevant in terms of the role of islam in the current insurgencies in the middle east. But I also believe you fall short of "material." But as I said, the majority position is quick to tout the criticality of Islamism as a causal factor for our current troubles. I've spent a lot of time thinking and studying on this, and I just can't make that connection.
A somewhat silly series of semantic comments...
Hi Wilf,
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
Well then why are you using violence to set forth a policy? Are you killing people to make them like you?
You know, the Inquisition had this one solved - it wasn't about making them "like" you, it was about saving their souls (too bad about the bodies, but....).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
If you want to drop some silly words, try getting rid of "COIN." - Thanks to CNAS and the like, it is now utterly meaningless and a block to clear and effective thinking.
Why not drop the term "war" as well? I mean, think about how it has been stretched all out of shape - the war on terror, the war on poverty, the war on obesity, etc. ad nauseum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
....and winning a war requires you destroy the enemy. It works. It works better than anything else and it is proven to work.
Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.